Buddhism

[emma_goldman]

From An End to Suffering:


Over more than four decades of exile, the Dalai Lama continued to insist nonviolent opposition to brutal Chinese rule over Tibet and threatened to resign leadership of the Tibetan community if violent insurrection.

PACIFISM IS PATHOLOGY. Thank you Ward Churchill. ;)

Your thoughts?

[Eleutherios]

Not only is he a pacifist, he's a hypocritical one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso...14th_Dalai_Lama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama)

In October 1998, The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the US government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA). When asked by CIA officer John Kenneth Knaus in 1995 whether the organization did a good or bad thing in providing its support, the Dalai Lama replied that though it helped the morale of those resisting the Chinese, "thousands of lives were lost in the resistance" and further, that "the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese."

[Sadena Meti]

The logic of pacifism... if we all do our own nothing, things will happen.

[Loknar]

So...its OK if the CCP invades Tibet, but it's not OK for the Tibetans to resist imperialism?

[Janus]

So...its OK if the CCP invades Tibet
No, it's not ok. We support self-determination.


but it's not OK for the Tibetans to resist imperialism?
No one said that. We support Tibetan self-determination without a Dalai Lama as the ruler.

[LSD]

So...its OK if the CCP invades Tibet, but it's not OK for the Tibetans to resist imperialism?

This has nothing to do with "Tibetans resisting"; the Dalai Llama is not "resisting" anything by accepting CIA funds, he's rather collaborating with the US government so he can get his brutal theocracy back.

Not only is that patently contrary to the actual interests of the Tibetan people, but it is entirely at odds with his public professions of "pacifism".

It would appear that his "pacifism" only applies when his own petty interests are not challanged. There's a word for that kind of "pacifism": selfishness.

Besides, real anti-imperialist struggle does not come from rich pampered "demi-Gods" who's sole interest is their own personal power. It comes from real oppressed peoples fighting on the ground. The Tibet that the Tibetan people would create would be a progressive democratic one; The Tibet that the Dalai Llama would create would be the Tibet of 50 years ago.

A "free Tibet" must be free of all oppressions, be they Chinese imperialist or Buddhist theocratic.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:18 PM
From An End to Suffering:


Over more than four decades of exile, the Dalai Lama continued to insist nonviolent opposition to brutal Chinese rule over Tibet and threatened to resign leadership of the Tibetan community if violent insurrection.

PACIFISM IS PATHOLOGY. Thank you Ward Churchill. ;)

Your thoughts?
Is Pacifism is Pathology avaliable for free download or viewing?

[ichneumon]

I actually agree about passiveness. Most Buddhists are WAY too passive. Thich Nicht Hahn is big on opposing this.

But still, do you honestly believe that if Tibet were free and democratic today, that they would not just elect the DL? If Tibet were given back to the DL, do you doubt that he would hold free elections? Why not, he'd be elected.

Frankly, the DL doesn't compare with Stalin, Mao or Hitler. Get real. He's a nice guy, not my hero or anything, but okay. So what, why attack him? What has he done in the last 20yrs? Compared to who? He writes self-help books and tours a lot. Go hate the Pope or something.

[Janus]

But still, do you honestly believe that if Tibet were free and democratic today, that they would not just elect the DL?
If it an actual democratic republic were established I would hope that the Dalai Lama would not actually enter the campaigns. That would be a bit too "secular".


He's a nice guy, not my hero or anything, but okay
He may look like a harmless guy today but he used to live in luxury while his people lived in squalor.

[LSD]

But still, do you honestly believe that if Tibet were free and democratic today, that they would not just elect the DL?

Yes.

The fascination with the Dalai Llama is really more of a western phenomenon than it is a Tibetan one. The people of Tibet are more than aware of what the "DL" is and what he represents.

Besides, the Dalai Llama almost certainly wouldn't "lower himself" to running in secular elections. He wouldn't want to "legitimize" any political alternative to personal feudal rule.


Frankly, the DL doesn't compare with Stalin, Mao or Hitler. Get real. He's a nice guy

Personally he may indeed be a "nice guy", but institutionaly he represents and oppressive and exploitative system which must be opposed.

His role as feudal ruler of Tibet, if "reclaimed" would lead to the mass suffering of the Tibetan people on a scale not seen since he was kicked out of his palace 50 years ago.

As long as he's just "writing", he's no threat to anyone, but insofar as he lobies for a political restoration, he's the enemy of anyone who favour democracy and liberty for the Tibetan people.

You say to hate the Pope, but the Pope is not trying to reclaim his secular authority. I know that it's "hip" to embrace "eastern" religious figures, but in this case political nescessite must supercede any cultural "appeal" of this "nice guy".


why attack him?

For the same reason we attack every other feudal despot.

[Janus]

The people of Tibet are more than aware of what the "DL" is and what he represents.
Of course, the Tibetans still respect and approve of the Dalai Lama in the same respect that they approve of his specific strain of Buddhism. But if it came to actual elections, the Dalai Lama would most likely not run unless he wanted to be harshly criticized by his fellow Buddhists for doing so.

But who knows, the Buddhist community in China is certainly parting from "the Way".


Besides, the Dalai Llama
:lol: Was that intentional or a typo?

[ichneumon]

About pacifism:

The hawk and dove game 101:

Does anyone else know this game-theory bit and understand reciprocal altruism?

[Dean]

Buddhism isn't that bad, if you take the essence of the initial philosophy. If you take the bullshit that Dahli Lahmas have said since then, it is not a good philosophy at all.

[Orange Juche]

Originally posted by rev-[email protected] 4 2006, 02:21 PM
The logic of pacifism... if we all do our own nothing, things will happen.
I'm definately not a pacifist... but I just want to defend pacifists on this one.

Pacifists believe in using nonviolence rather than violence as the vehicle for change. They don't advocate doing nothing, they advocate doing something without being violent about it.

[liberationjunky]

I think that peaceful protests are the better way to a revolution. It is only when peaceful protests do not work that we must resort to other means of protesting.

As to the Dalai Lama I'm not sure about this whole issue but i still believe he is a great teacher. He leads people down the path of equality, understanding, and peace. For this I highly respect him.

[Eleutherios]

Sure, I don't think anybody doubts that nonviolent means of achieving our goals are preferable to violent ones, if both are reasonable. But it's quite naïve to think the capitalists and the state will give up what they have without a fight.

As for the Dalai Lama's commitment to "equality", he's not exactly a communist, and has defended the serfdom of feudal Tibet, where the elite lama class lived in utter opulence off the labor of the working class. I highly doubt that, if he were able to wrestle control of a Tibetan theocracy again, that he would set up an egalitarian sociopolitical system, give away his riches and start working in the fields alongside the peasants in democratically managed workers' unions.

[Comrade C.A.]

well I'm not seeing much about actual Buddhist practice, just attacking the Dalai Lama.
I like Buddhism, in particular Soto Zen (which I practice). One of many things I like about it has been said by many Zen abbots and Roshis:
no work for the Sangha, no food for you
to me that's a good thing. monks helping one another for the upkeep of the monastery.
it may seem like a horrible thing to not work and not eat but isn't that better than what's been stated about working to support the Lamas?

[Janus]

He leads people down the path of equality, understanding, and peace
The lamas basically controlled all the land in Tibet; it was hardly equal.

[Ol' Dirty]

What people fail to understand is this: the Dalai Llamma does not represent the entire Buddhist community. He only represents the Tibetan Buddhist sect, and no others.

[redhmong]

Why so many guys think Dalai Lama a victim?

I don't think an unattached Tibet is better. If Tibet is independent of China, then Yankee Imperialism will have one more conoly.

That Dalai Lama accepts the fund of USA government suggets that he is a politician. He is not qualified to be a religious leader.

[Akira]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 08:26 PM
I actually agree about passiveness. Most Buddhists are WAY too passive. Thich Nicht Hahn is big on opposing this.

But still, do you honestly believe that if Tibet were free and democratic today, that they would not just elect the DL? If Tibet were given back to the DL, do you doubt that he would hold free elections? Why not, he'd be elected.

Frankly, the DL doesn't compare with Stalin, Mao or Hitler. Get real. He's a nice guy, not my hero or anything, but okay. So what, why attack him? What has he done in the last 20yrs? Compared to who? He writes self-help books and tours a lot. Go hate the Pope or something.
You must not be familiar with the Japanese Sohei or the Ikko Ikki historically.

There is also the Shaolin monks who resisted the Chinese government at one time.

Today there are even Buddhist Anarchists.

I think it is rather a blatant stereotype to say all Buddhists are pacifists as Buddhists naturally understand the necessity of destruction too in a universe that requires balance.